Her Linkedin says she's in Atlanta. Either way, I doubt she will get severance after that and if Cloudflare wants to make a point they could try to go after her for a violation of the companies NDA/confidentiality she signed when she was hired by recording that and sharing it on the net.
Doing that has a big chance of backfiring from a PR perspectives and I’d be surprised if a good lawyer couldn’t find an argument that the agreement did not extend to bad-faith claims or, depending on whether things like the WARN act apply, illegal acts. I would be surprised if they tried that because as soon as they sue, she’d be able to request a lot of information under discovery and the odds are pretty high that would reveal something which they’d like not to have public. Nuking a former employee with no assets is not worth the NLRB or similar getting interested.
So, this one seems quite complicated, California is an "All Party" consent state. There's precedent from the California Supreme Court (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95; 2006) that when someone in a one-party consent state records a conversation with someone from California, the stricter condition applies, meaning they need all parties to consent.
At the Federal level, it's seemingly mostly a one-party situation and so it also isn't incredibly clear that someone would find it easy to bring a case in California against an individual based in Virginia. Multi-jurisdictional crime is complicated, People v. Brown 69 Cal. App. 2d 602 was a California appelate court decision saying California can only prosecure crimes occurring in California. Perhaps you would argue the person on this call from California was a wronged party if they didn't consent, but United States v. Anderson - 328 U.S. 699 (1946) concluded “the locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it", which does very little to conclude California would be able to prosecute a Virginian for recording a call with a Californian, even despite the other ruling?
If the participants in the conversation weren't based in California but were based in other states which still require more than one party to consent, I don't think many states other than California have settled precedent on whether the stricter condition applies.
I'm not sure that California's law applies as this does not appear to be a recording of a telephone call. It seems to be a recording of some sort of Team's type meeting, which I am unsure the law applies to.
BOOM! Now anyone doing due background checks on her and googling her name will find that post and flag her as a huge liability and a complete no-hire. Brilliant.